From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 27711 invoked by alias); 30 Jul 2002 19:04:37 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 27693 invoked from network); 30 Jul 2002 19:04:36 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO crack.them.org) (65.125.64.184) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 30 Jul 2002 19:04:36 -0000 Received: from dsl254-114-118.nyc1.dsl.speakeasy.net ([216.254.114.118] helo=nevyn.them.org ident=mail) by crack.them.org with asmtp (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian)) id 17ZcIL-0006Zw-00; Tue, 30 Jul 2002 14:04:33 -0500 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 17ZcIJ-0004U5-00; Tue, 30 Jul 2002 15:04:31 -0400 Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2002 12:05:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Kevin Buettner Cc: Martin Gadbois , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [PATCH] Cross target core debugging: host=i386, Target=PPC Message-ID: <20020730190431.GA17221@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Kevin Buettner , Martin Gadbois , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com References: <3D45ACCC.9040803@colubris.com> <1020729215359.ZM11339@localhost.localdomain> <20020729164057.P3112@dr-evil.shagadelic.org> <20020729234439.GA666@nevyn.them.org> <20020730153200.GA619@nevyn.them.org> <1020730162739.ZM15174@localhost.localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1020730162739.ZM15174@localhost.localdomain> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.1i X-SW-Source: 2002-07/txt/msg00597.txt.bz2 On Tue, Jul 30, 2002 at 09:27:39AM -0700, Kevin Buettner wrote: > On Jul 30, 11:32am, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: > > > +#define ELF_NGREG 48 /* includes nip, msr, lr, etc. */ > > +#define ELF_NFPREG 33 /* includes fpscr */ > > +#define ELF_NVRREG 33 /* includes vscr */ > > I noticed that the above are never actually referenced anywhere. Can > we dispense with these defines? Or are there some hard coded > constants lurking somewhere that should actually be defined in terms > of one or more of the above? > > Which reminds me... I think the recent trend in gdb has been to use > enums for constants rather than #define where possible. > > Aside from the above concerns, your patch looks okay to me. Checked in with those changes. -- Daniel Jacobowitz Carnegie Mellon University MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer